Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Martok]

This pretty much sums up libertarians.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Not on this planet.

[MrJonno]

Actually the American economic system is as much dominated by nationalism as it is capitalism.

The biggest employer in any country is always the government and generally in the UK government contracts can go to anyone regardless of who owns the bidding company. In the US they generally put government tenders out to American countries only. Hardly a free market?

[eXcommunicate]

This pretty much sums up libertarians.

LOL ain't that the truth.

I think Libertarians are actually abused more by the Republican Party than Progressives are abused by the Democratic Party. Either way it's a close call and pretty fucking sad.

[NineOneFour]

The Heritage is a Libertarian think tank. So here we have a libertarian using a libertarian ranking system to prove libertarianism.

Not. buying. it. for. one. second.

Conservative actually. But is there something about the results which actually strikes you as odd or are you just dismissing them off-hand because they are inconvieniant?

It does if you buy into Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman (although he was sometimes disabled by bouts of sanity), Albert Jay Nock, and/or Murray Rothbard.

And one need not fully agree with any of them to be a libertarian. Heck, two of them are anarcho-capitalists which is about as extreme as you can get when it comes to libertarianism.

Libertarianism is nothing more than anarcho-capitalism with fewer syllables.

The Heritage are libertarians, not conservatives, or at least their economics is pure libertarian.

And, even if accurate, which it isn't, arguing that they are conservative so they must be right is not helping your cause much...

*sigh* Yes, their economic views are the same as libertarians but their social views are totally different.

Okay, let's try this again.

Since you have linked to an Index of ECONOMIC Freedom, created by the Heritage Foundation and using their own criteria, which you have admitted is a Libertarian ECONOMIC philosophy, what we have here is a Libertarian using a Libertarian ranking from a Libertarian website.

In short, it's rubbish, as I said earlier.

Glad we cleared that up and established that I was right all along.

Also, I never said that it was not bias because it was conservative, in fact if you look back at what I said you will find that I stated outright that there is a chance of bias DUE TO the conservative source but that the results seem, to me at least, fairly accurate. If you have a problem with something in the data, point it out and stop attacking the source.

What data? It's a libertarian index of how easy it is to start a business. So fucking what? Does that tell you anything about how free any of those countries are? Does it tell you what the average Joe makes? Does it tell you what unemployment or underemployment are? Does it tell you what the taxes are for average Joe?

No.

In short, it's fucking worthless. It's a chart for libertarians to wank to.

Finally, if you honestly believe all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists then I don't know that there is really a point to this discussion, I may as well be talking to a brick wall.

Maybe if you define the precise differences between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, that would be a good start, rather than making the claim without evidence.

[NineOneFour]

If libertarianism is the best ideology where on earth is it being practiced?

The only country that comes close is Somalia.

Where else?

That was anarchy and they did about as well as any other African nation while they had no central government.

What do you think the end result of libertarianism is?

Anarchy.

Oh, no...wait...I forgot....the end result of libertarianism is rainbows, marshmallows, unicorns, and everyone gets a pony.

No, taken to the extreme libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. Just like liberal socialism taken to its extreme is anarcho-syndicalism.

Libertarians ARE extremists.

[NineOneFour]

Most nations have public healthcare. To pay of it requires higher tax rates which does hurt economic freedom in that map. However it takes a number of other factors into account as well (ease of starting a business for instance). Hence nations with high tax rates can still be economically free (just not as free as they would be with lower taxes)

I'm sorry this is gibberish.

Americans have actually less economic freedom with the insurance based health care system as the individual insurance cost has to be added to what you pay in taxes. The only time you can disregard the insurance cost is when you have no insurance whatsoever. But you also have to understand that in the health care tax other countries pay, things like nursing home and home for elders, are included. In the US, you economic freedom is lower since you have to put aside money for health care, unemployment, retirement and nursing homes etc.......

You don't 'have' to put the money aside it would just be overwhelmingly stupid not to.

Actually, one would have to be overwhelmingly stupid to think that anyone who makes less than about $250,000 a year is even capable of putting the kind of sums aside to pay for health care, unemployment, retirement, etc.

Economic freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices though,

And therefore, you can end up in the gutter.

And so can your kids.

Color me unimpressed.

Interestingly enough, there's more to "economic freedom" than low taxes and corporatism uber alles.

a freedom one loses to so degree when dealing with government run healthcare.

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it clearly isn't and all evidence suggests that, from a purely pragmatic stand-point, a public healthcare system would actually be preferable to it (in its current form).

We agree on that.

However, you will find few if any libertarians defending the status quo when it comes to healthcare in America. American libertarians from what I have seen tend to promote other ideas such as allowing the purchace of out of state insurance.

Because they are stupid. They look at the current system, which is far more free-market oriented than successful socialist systems and think "wow, what's wrong with this is that it isn't free market oriented ENOUGH".

[NineOneFour]

G

According to that map Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand are the most economically free.

Guess what else they also have in common? PUBLIC GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE

That should automatically disqualify them as free since most libertarians consider government run health care a form of tyranny.

Most nations have public healthcare. To pay of it requires higher tax rates which does hurt economic freedom in that map. However it takes a number of other factors into account as well (ease of starting a business for instance). Hence nations with high tax rates can still be economically free (just not as free as they would be with lower taxes)

Note that libertarians, as I said, only give a shit about economics. It's okay if you have no social or political rights...

I tend to be more interested in social freedoms myself. It is just that this discussion is about economic freedom and thus it is what I am discussing. (Although I will grant you, many libertarians do focus far too much on economic rights, sometimes at the expense of social rights.)

I'm all about both.

You'll find that I'll vote libertarian before I'll vote conservative. Every. damn. time.

I want legalized gay marriage, abortion to be legal everywhere and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists, legalized gambling, legalized drug use, legalized euthanasia, and legalized prostitution. I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays. But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care, I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus, paid postnatal leave for 6 months, labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

I think the current political system is stupid.

[NineOneFour]

Not on this planet.

Guess again.

The No True Scotsman fallacy isn't going to work here.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Actually, one would have to be overwhelmingly stupid to think that anyone who makes less than about $250,000 a year is even capable of putting the kind of sums aside to pay for health care, unemployment, retirement, etc.

Do you have a source for how much health insurance and income insurance are in America? Consider also the reasons why it might be more expensive that it needs to be, some be be quite easily fixed.

And therefore, you can end up in the gutter.

And so can your kids.

Color me unimpressed.

Interestingly enough, there's more to "economic freedom" than low taxes and corporatism uber alles.

I've no problem with a minimal welfare system to give another chance to those who make mistakes. Ideally I would like to see all welfare replaced with private charity but I've doubts as to exactly how fesible that is, espessially in the short term. Also, corporatism acts AGAINST economic freedom, not for.

That's like saying you lose economic freedom due to government run police forces because you can't use your own money to buy your own self-defense force.

Strictly speaking you do. However the price of living in a society is that there are some limits to your freedom. Only anarchists would doubt that.

Because they are stupid. They look at the current system, which is far more free-market oriented than successful socialist systems and think "wow, what's wrong with this is that it isn't free market oriented ENOUGH".

Well it isn't. The American healthcare system is stuck is some kind of weird limbo between a government run system and a free market system. Look at the protections from competition that insurance companies have which are enforced by the government. Those wouldn't exist in a true free-market system.

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

Not on this planet.

Guess again.

The No True Scotsman fallacy isn't going to work here.

and posting silly cartoons is?

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

I'm all about both.

You'll find that I'll vote libertarian before I'll vote conservative. Every. damn. time.

I want legalized gay marriage, abortion to be legal everywhere and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists, legalized gambling, legalized drug use, legalized euthanasia, and legalized prostitution. I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays. But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care, I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus, paid postnatal leave for 6 months, labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

I think the current political system is stupid.

I agree with you on: gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws.
I think there are alternatives to universal healthcare but I agree that it works from a pragmatic stand point.
I agree with you on having some form of welfare but I imagine I would probably limit it more that you would.
I have no problem with people forming unions to fight for better working conditions if they so wish
I disagree with you on taxes. I would prefer a flat tax system however I find taxation to be a fairly minor issue over all. Radical change is needed in many other areas first (such as gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws)


Admittedly I am a quite moderate libertarian.

[Martok]

I've no problem with a minimal welfare system to give another chance to those who make mistakes. Ideally I would like to see all welfare replaced with private charity but I've doubts as to exactly how fesible that is, espessially in the short term. Also, corporatism acts AGAINST economic freedom, not for.

The problem with relying on charities in a libertarian society is that libertarianism does not encourage donations. As such, charities would struggle to even come close to meeting the minimal needs of those who they are trying to help.

As Milton Friedman wrote:

When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free en­terprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing em­ployment, eliminating discrimination, avoid­ing pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of re­formers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preach­ing pure and unadulterated socialism.]

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/l ... iness.html

[Martok]

I'm all about both.

You'll find that I'll vote libertarian before I'll vote conservative. Every. damn. time.

I want legalized gay marriage, abortion to be legal everywhere and not under threat by misguided and twisted theists, legalized gambling, legalized drug use, legalized euthanasia, and legalized prostitution. I think it's stupid that you can't sell alcohol on Sundays. But I'm not insane. I think we need universal health care, I think people through no fault of themselves can become sick or destitute and that we need unemployment insurance for 6 months plus, paid postnatal leave for 6 months, labor rights, and that anyone who makes over $250,000 a year could pony up 40% in taxes and anyone who makes over $1,000,000 a year should pony up 50% minimum in taxes.

I think the current political system is stupid.

I agree with you on: gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws.
I think there are alternatives to universal healthcare but I agree that it works from a pragmatic stand point.
I agree with you on having some form of welfare but I imagine I would probably limit it more that you would.
I have no problem with people forming unions to fight for better working conditions if they so wish
I disagree with you on taxes. I would prefer a flat tax system however I find taxation to be a fairly minor issue over all. Radical change is needed in many other areas first (such as gay marriage, abortion, gambling, drug use, euthanasia, prositution and blue laws)


Admittedly I am a quite moderate libertarian.

SOCIALIST!!

[Squeak_the_Mouse]

I've no problem with a minimal welfare system to give another chance to those who make mistakes. Ideally I would like to see all welfare replaced with private charity but I've doubts as to exactly how fesible that is, espessially in the short term. Also, corporatism acts AGAINST economic freedom, not for.

The problem with relying on charities in a libertarian society is that libertarianism does not encourage donations. As such, charities would struggle to even come close to meeting the minimal needs of those who they are trying to help.

[/quote]

I wouldn't say that libertarianism discourages donation, rather I would say that human nature discourages donation.

Did I mention that I'm also a cynic?